SpaceX: We Need NASA to Change Crew Contracts

Today, leaders of private space companies testified before a congressional committee on their relationship with NASA, and they weren't happy: The space execs say the contract NASA has written to cover their crew-carrying spacecraft is too vague, too intruding, and too slow—and one of the biggest players threatened to drop out altogether.

If NASA doesn't change the terms in the draft version of its contract to build a spacecraft that can deliver astronauts to orbit, then Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) may simply bow out of building one for NASA. "We may not bid on it," SpaceX founder Elon Musk said. However he is increasingly optimistic that the agency will change some of the rules that dictate the design.

Musk was in Washington, D.C., today, along with other leaders of private space companies, testifying before the House Committee on Science and Technology about the state of the partnership between NASA and private space companies. Musk made his comments to PM outside the hearing room, but the backstory of his frustration is the first draft of a contract called the CCIDC (Commercial Crew Integrated Design Contract), which NASA issued last month to guide the way that private companies build crew-carrying spacecraft. As Popular Mechanics reported last week, this early version of the contract allows NASA to exert more control over the hardware design than many in the industry are comfortable with. It installs NASA staff into the companies' facilities and leaves open the question of how many changes the agency can force companies to make.

That is a big deal, considering the contract is fixed-price. That means the company does not get more money if the design changes—other contracts, called cost-plus, compensate for these increases.

"Some of the contract seemed cut-and-pasted from Constellation," Musk says, referring to the contracts behind the program that was to carry astronauts into orbit before the Obama administration canceled it. "It's important that if the price is fixed, the terms must also be fixed."

Other space industry leaders at the hearing brought up similar concerns over the scope of NASA's control during testimony—but did not signal they would drop out of the competition. (Secretive space company Blue Origin didn't show up for the hearing, however.) ATK's Charlie Precourt, vice president of the company's space-launch systems, says it's still unclear how NASA will judge the space hardware. "NASA has not yet announced its final requirements for the commercial-crew certification process," he says. "The degree of testing and verification required to achieve certification is still under development at the agency. This could ultimately affect a schedule delay, causing a larger gap in America's access to space and jeopardizing the success of the program."

The witnesses also expressed discomfort with the lack of detail on how much NASA's demands on the design would drive the cost of development. "NASA should provide oversight and direction in all cases where they see a need to improve safety of a spacecraft being developed for their use," Sierra Nevada's flight director Steven Lindsey said. "However, that does not mean that every technical change suggested by the government should be accepted. If a change makes the design 'better' but doesn't impact safety, then the commercial company must have the leeway to accept or reject the change based on technical, cost, or schedule considerations."

What is clear, the companies say, is that the timeline in NASA's contract is too slow—all the players told Congress they could launch by 2015, while the NASA contract states a 2017 flight date. With adequate funding they can be ready to go in 2015, they all agreed. "Six years seems like infinity," Musk said.